N
Ned Bojic
Guest
Yes it's all about one's style and vision and rules.
rogazilla thank you very much for recounting your experience!I can understand that. Grew up in south east Asia. A lot of pictures I saw here means something to me. I really appreciate them but when I show my wife who has never been, she has hard time understand the appeal.
you are right! Though for me this is an interesting and many facetted topic, and related to the other recent talk, I should not want to have that discussion here and therefore better had refrained. Just that much, it's much more broad issues than 'understanding us' and please consider that rogazilla's answer shows that the observation is foundedWhy this sudden south-Asian "nobody understand us" talk?..

There is a huge gap between "photography in color" and "color photography as a concept, an art form"
It seems hard for some people to make the difference.
Yes, that is clear as 99,9% of all photography is in color.
Most of the time the color in a photograph is boring, except when the color is the subject of the color photograph. But when is the color the subject? Only in a very few occasions, 0,1%. So it would be better if 99,9% of all photography was in B+W.
Color in photography is often boring because the photographer gets it for free.
Fred Wouldn't Wynn Bullocks color work or maybe some of Eggleston's work and in painting the abstract expressionist Mark Rothko be examples?
For years, Tod Papageorge, the head of the Photography Department at the Yale University School of Art, would begin student critiques of color pictures with the question, “Why color?” Color was an aesthetic choice and Papageorge felt students needed to account for it. Photography, that neat Greek neologism given us by the English chemist Sir John Herschel (whose father discovered Uranus!)–meant silver prints, black and white ones, and Type C’s or Cibachromes represented as extroverted a stylistic decision as wearing white shoes after Labor Day.
Of course now those values have reversed. Photographers making monochrome pictures are engaged in an antique practice that is going the way of platinum and palladium.
To me black and white photos were like silent films, just a product of early [limited] technology, not an aesthetic choice. Paintings were in color, and plays had sound. However it seems B&W is now an aesthetic choice -- but silent films, not so much.
But the fact is that BW is an aesthetic choice, not a poorman's choice.
And color photography can be about Color as the main subject just as Infrared photography is much more about the infrared look than about the landscape. The infrared flavor stands on its own (although it can be a disaster more often than not).
Wynn Bullock's "Color Light Abstractions" perhaps, but really a stretch to take it very seriously. Eggleston no they are just color, and Mark Rothko yes but they aren't photos. 🙂
Back to Eggleston -- read this http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/01/william-eggleston-sit-in-at-fotomat.html
Personally I never believed color was an aesthetic choice, since I was trained as a painter, and painting had been in color since the cave paintings in the Lascaux Caves.
To me black and white photos were like silent films, just a product of early [limited] technology, not an aesthetic choice. Paintings were in color, and plays had sound. However it seems B&W is now an aesthetic choice -- but silent films, not so much.
Thanks Fred....
You might look at the South African photos, your aesthetic is similar.